G.R. Majithia, J. - (1.) THE Petitioners have impugned the order dated November 9, 1987 passed by the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Pathankot in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) REFERENCE to a few relevant facts is necessary to appreciate the point raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Respondent No. 1 moved a petition under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (for short, the Act) against the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 in the Court of the District Judge, Bhaderwah in the district of Doda in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. By an order dated November 10, 1972, petition was allowed by the learned District Judge ordering recovery of Rs. 2,65,964.72 against the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2. The order was executable as a decree. The loan was advanced by Respondent No. 1 to Respondent No. 2 and the Petitioners were the guarantors. The learned District Judge who, was seized of the matter, passed the order not only against the principal debtor but also against the guarantors. The principal debtor did not discharge the liability. Respondent No. 1 took out execution in the Court of the District Judge, Bhaderwah, who issued a precept under Section 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure for attaching properties of the guarantors mentioned therein. The period mentioned in the precept was extended, but the decree was not transferred to the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Pathankot. The Subordinate Judge not only attached the properties but also auctioned the same, necessitating the filing of objections under Order 21, Rule 58, Code of Civil Procedure by the guarantors. The objections failed and the guarantors have moved this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) AT the hearing of the petition, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 stated that the execution application which was pending in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Pathankot has already been withdrawn and the same has been dismissed as such.;